Grenada Revolution

Prior to March 13, 1979, few people had ever heard of Grenada, one of the smallest countries of the Western Hemisphere. It all began in 1973, when the National Jewel Movement (NJM) formed to oppose the dictatorship of Eric Gairy, successor to British colonial rule, who was as treacherous and brutal as Papa Doc was in Haiti. Many activists, both in Grenada and worldwide, were inspired by the movement's call for a populist socialism. After six years of growing mass mobilizations that created a virtual stalemate with the Gairy regime, the revolutionary forces launched an armed uprising on March 13, 1979.

In 1979, Gairy was ousted in a bloodless takeover and the People's Revolutionary Government (PRG) came to power, headed by Prime Minister Maurice Bishop. Under Bishop, Grenada aligned itself with Cuba and other Soviet bloc countries, which alarmed the U.S. and other Caribbean nations. The people of Grenada adored Bishop, but the Reagan administration viewed him as diabolically suspicious, particularly for his close relationship with the Cuban government. In his 1983 Hunter College speech, Bishop mockingly paraphrased a State Department report, bringing down the house: "Grenada is a particular threat as an English-speaking, Black revolution that could have a dangerous influence on Blacks in the U.S."-which indeed it did, and on progressives worldwide. But the inability of Grenada's new leaders to resolve differences over governance-probably fed by Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) aid to opposition factions-led to the turmoil that opened the gates for the U.S. invasion. Bernard Coard, the finance and Deputy Prime Minister, began waging factional warfare against Bishop and his allies, culminating in the October 13 military coup. Twelve days later, under the pretext of protecting U.S. medical students on the island, President Reagan authorized the invasion. He felt justified in moving against a government that was using Cubans to build an airport and was a threat to U.S. hegemony in the Caribbean. U.S. marines killed dozens of Grenadian soldiers and civilians and 18 Cuban construction workers.

On October 13, 1983 all the developing plans and dreams of the revolutionary government were smashed in a cataclysm of reaction, provoked by a split within National Jewel Movement ranks. Bishop and his closest confidants including Rojas, Bishop's press secretary, were put under house arrest, provoking massive popular protests led by high school students. The fleet of students swept past the soldiers, freed Maurice and brought him to Fort Rupert, the military headquarters in the capital city of St. George's. The anti-revolutionary government forces violently stormed the fort and killed 13 of Bishop's defenders, and minutes later murdered Bishop himself and several other cabinet ministers and union leaders.

There were many repercussions of the Grenada Revolution. The events of that fateful day would have profound economic, social, and political ramifications that resound in Grenada even today.

1. Economic Repercussions

Bishop's People's Revolutionary Government (PRG) guided the economy into a phase aptly described as "foreign aid socialism," a form of socialism maintained by financial dependence on other socialist countries. Early PRG economic philosophy espoused a strong, diversified agricultural sector and government control of industry through cooperative management and nationalization. What actually developed was a program dependent on the construction industry for growth and on foreign grants for capitalization. Analyses following the removal of the PRG government suggested that the attempt at socialist transformation did not produce a revolution in economic development; there was no change in the distribution of income, and the standard of living actually declined slightly. This occurred because the PRG failed to develop a well-defined economic plan, managed economic enterprises poorly, and became overly concerned with political, rather than economic, priorities.

After the Grenada Revolution, the Blaize government, by contrast, undertook a change in economic orientation emphasizing tourism and agriculture as the leading economic sectors. Private control of economic enterprises, attraction of both public and private foreign capital, and pursuit of a strong export trade were the fundamental elements of the